Hello everyone. I thought this subject heading would get some attention. Anyway, I have a question: why do you people believe any of this? I'm sure if one wanted, he could find enough "evidence" to tie a conspiracy around any event in world history.
Another question: Why do these websites only focus on Republicans? So far, I haven't seen anyone question FDR's account of Pearl Harbor. I haven't heard anything about the possibility that Clinton launched airstrikes on Iraq in order to distract the public from the Lewinsky proceedings. Do I believe in any of this? NO. Nevertheless, if you people can believe that Bush planned the 9/11 attacks, why don't you believe these theories? Oh yeah, FDR and Clinton were Democrat heroes. All I'm saying is that if you want to find conspiracy theories, at least be bipartisan. Don't tell me that all Republicans are inherently evil, and all Democrats are benevolent. Maybe more people would begin to believe some of this if you didn't discriminate. But, I know this would be too much to ask.

P.S. If I have been guilty of bad writing or gramatical errors, just know that it isn't because I'm a dumb, evil Repblican but because I typed this post in five minutes. Thank you.

Actually cc, you are wrong. We have in the past brought up those exact points. The difference? Who is in power now? Is it FDR? Is it Clinton?

Noppers, its Bushit. Following the PNAC agenda. Although for a history lesson, these things may have some importance, but it will do no good whatsoever for us to focus on things in the past. In truth, I think most of us on this site are actually against the corruption on both sides of the fence, and we realize that both sides are culpable for the situation we are now in.

(would any hard line dems or repubs please raise your hand)

And yes, this administration is responsible for the New Pearl Harbor via PNAC.

And no, they are not aliens. They are evil, small minded individuals.

Let me ask you something. With what you state about FDR and Clinton, why would you all of a sudden think that these Neocons who have hijacked the White House be benevolent in their actions? Is it because they are supposed Christians? Lol. Sorry man. Do some real homework. Bush is a Christian just like Hitler was a Christian.
Unless you plan to come in here with some concrete evidence consisting of solid physics about the collapse of all 3 towers, then don't bother. If you can come up with concrete evidence, then collect your 1 million dollars.

_________________CrimsonEagleThe war to end all wars can only be fought on the front-lines of the mind.

The greatest deception they have perpetrated is that we need them. Our greatest mistake is that we believe them.

I dont vouch for anyone but most of us cospiracy theorists dont think Bush planned the entire 911 occurrence. He is not smart enough. I think they knew of the attacks and let it go on to promote their actions now. I think Crimson is right. This has nothing to do with being a conservative or a democrat. Its just those who defend either side just because thats THEIR side. I think people who use common sense can see right through the smoke screen. I get tired of the mentallity that you have to be a liberal to think there is a conspiracy, and you have to be conservative to defend the alleged president. This will go down right with the Lee Harvey facade.

You know what? I'm actually surprised. I truly believed that I was in for a barrage of hate-filled responses. I'm not being facetious at all. I actually appreciate your honesty. Furthermore, I appreciate your well-worded rational responses.
Nevertheless, I actually think that you need some concrete physical evidence. NO, I AM NOT AN ENGINEER, AND NO I HAVEN'T READ EVERY PIECE OF YOUR SO-CALLED EVIDENCE...YET. However, I will say that all of the evidence I have seen as presented by real engineers says the opposite. I suppose they are all lying. I suppose they are not real engineers but Bush controlled robots. I suppose YOU know what really happened. (Please don't tell men to read some website. Instead, give me an actual report. Tell me about a book written by an actual reputable scholar. Then, I might believe you.)
Do I believe everything in the 9/11 report. No. However, it would be unreasonable and impossible to write a completely accurate report on 9/11. Yes, even the gov't can make mistakes like every other person on this planet.

P.S. Crimson, you completely misunderstood me, I think. What exactly is your question? What does "with what you state about FDR and Clinton, why would you all of a sudden think that these Neocons who have hijacked the White House be benevolent in their actions" mean given my comments?

P.P.S. I do think it is interesting that you people believed enough in my subject heading to click on this post and read my comments.

Actually, I don't believe that the burden of proof is on me. Anyhow, here is a pretty good link. Please read the whole thing. You have got to realize that there are many scientists and engineers who do not believe in the official 9/11

Do I believe everything in the 9/11 report. No. However, it would be unreasonable and impossible to write a completely accurate report on 9/11. Yes, even the gov't can make mistakes like every other person on this planet.

There is a huge difference between mistakes and outright deception and cover ups. That the buildings were brought down by demolitions, I have no doubt. That this government has covered it up, I have no doubt.

Quote:

P.S. Crimson, you completely misunderstood me, I think. What exactly is your question? What does "with what you state about FDR and Clinton, why would you all of a sudden think that these Neocons who have hijacked the White House be benevolent in their actions" mean given my comments?

Yes, I did misunderstand. I do apologize. I was reading quickly and missed something key.

Quote:

P.P.S. I do think it is interesting that you people believed enough in my subject heading to click on this post and read my comments.

I also read all new posts. When I had seen what your title was I was thinking, "You have got to be freaking kidding me"
I was kind of relieved that you were not serious.

_________________CrimsonEagleThe war to end all wars can only be fought on the front-lines of the mind.

The greatest deception they have perpetrated is that we need them. Our greatest mistake is that we believe them.

I appreciate your response Crimson, really. I am truly grateful that your replies are well-thought and rational as opposed to the mindless name-calling so common on these boards. I will go to the website you sent me.
Also, I really don't mean to be degrading in my posts, but this stuff is hard for me to swallow. However, I will admit it if I ever change my position. One thing I can't stand about all politicians is there inability to admit mistakes, and I don't want to be guilty of the same thing.

Are you talking about Bush wanting to control the National Guard instead of the state? Hmmm how about the fact that he called the government of England "Tony Blair's governement or when he was referring to the US, he referred to it as HIS Government?

Almost five years after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and two years after the federal 9/11 Commission issued its report, the two men in charge of the inquiry are publishing a book about what went on behind the scenes.

"Without Precedent," written by the commission's co-chairmen Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, hits shelves today. NY1's Solana Pyne recently sat down with Tom Kean to discuss some of the commission's proceedings.

"Without Precedent" details one of the more controversial moments in the commission's tenure – the public interview of former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

In the book, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said they didn't ask the hard questions they should have, calling the moment, "a low point in the commission's questioning of witnesses at our public hearings."

In an interview last week, Kean wanted to clarify.

"Rudy Giuliani talking about that day can transfix you, because it is so dramatic, and he is so dramatic talking about it, that instead of asking hard questions, we really commended him. That's fine, except the public deserved the same kind of hard questions we'd asked everybody else. And we just didn't do it," he said.

"We asked him some of these things in private, so we had the information, we just didn't do it in public,” he continued. “We should have asked him more about the communications. I mean, there was a real failure in communications. People in the Police Department could not communicate with people in the Fire Department when they were up in the towers."

"Many of the families feel that people lost their lives because of that. That's probably the most serious questions. Things like why did you build, you know, you build the communication center in one of the towers, when the towers had already been attacked? Why did you do that? Why didn't you put them somewhere else?"

In the book, Kean and co-chair Lee Hamilton say they considered asking the Justice Department to investigate statements made by the Department of Defense, statements about when they knew about the hijackings on 9/11 and what their response had been - statements that proved patently false.

"There's no question they were lying. The question was whether they were doing intentionally or whether they just had the wrong information," said Kean. "We had generals and we had officials from the FAA and they just didn't tell the truth. And they didn't tell us they didn't tell the truth. We had to go and find it out for our own staff. We had to go and review tapes ourselves. We had to go and interview witnesses, and finally we pulled the story out."

Kean also said one of the biggest challenges the commission faced was negotiating with the White House to get information and publicly interview advisors.

"I think the hardest negotiation of all was the White House. I mean they resisted both things like having the presidential advisors like Condi Rice testify in public. They resisted having the president and vice president meet with the commission, which is understandable by the way because no president has ever met with a commission," he said.

"Lyndon Johnson at the time of the Kennedy investigation wouldn't meet with the commission. Sent them a letter and said that's enough, presidents don't appear before commissions," Kean continued. "So this was precedent shattering for the president to appear. And I recognize that the White House didn't want to break precedent. But we had to know what the president knew and when he knew it and we had to tell the American people."